Jump to content
  • Join us — it's free!

    We are the premiere internet community for New York Rangers news and fan discussion. Don't wait — join the forum today!

IGNORED

Targets to Break the Rangers' Homogeneity?


Phil

Recommended Posts

Before we cast Zib aside as some giant pussy, which he very well may be, let's acknowledge he has had concussion issues fairly recently.

 

That might also be why he's a mostly perimeter player now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dream fourth line this off-season:

 

Goodrow - Kuraly - Reaves

 

Strong identity. Strong forecheck. Split PK duties with two centers. Capable of scoring dirty goals when time and space evaporate (playoffs). Solves the "Wilson problem."

 

Hmmmmmmm! :thumbs:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dream fourth line this off-season:

 

Goodrow - Kuraly - Reaves

 

Strong identity. Strong forecheck. Split PK duties with two centers. Capable of scoring dirty goals when time and space evaporate (playoffs). Solves the "Wilson problem."

 

 

Offseason Goal: Reinvent the Fourth Line

 

http://www.blueshirtsbrotherhood.com/showthread.php?22998-Offseason-Goal-Reinvent-the-Fourth-Line&highlight=goodrow

 

I knew Goodrow was brought up, but man, hit the jackpot finding that thread.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see them trading Chytil & possibly Buchnevich to get a big 3rd line center and a Reaves type player for the 4th line.

They have way too many soft forwards on this team some of them have to be moved and I doubt it's Zibs, Panarin, Lafraniere, Kakko or Kravtsov.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, didnt they kinda try this?

 

No offense to either player individually, but collectively, they arent hard to play against. Add Chytil as 3C and it's worse.

That's the issue we're discussing - being harder/tougher to play against, and not just "sticks in lanes", we're talking physically tough to play against.

 

Panarin - not going anywhere, not changing

Buchnevich - probably the 'toughest to play against' forward

Kreider - usually the toughest to play against, most physical, strongest forward

Lafreneire - not going anywhere, may add some grit

Kakko - shouldnt be going anywhere either, becoming, maybe 'frustrating'? or annoying to play against, but not really a tough opponent

Chytil - soft, not changing

Kravtsov - shouldnt be going anywhere, not going to be tough to play against

 

so, we really want to move Kakko to keep Strome long-term? And they're still soft up the middle.

 

We also have the option to change up the lines to add toughness without subtracting talent. If a top 9 consisted of Zibanejad, Buchnevich, Lafreniere, Kakko, Strome, Panarin, Kreider, Kravtsov, and a power forward, we can mix and match to get the right amount of grit/toughness with skill. That said, one of the named players probably has to go for someone more difficult to play against. In this scenario, I think Kreider and Buchnevich are the most likely candidates. I'd rather keep Buch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buch isn't a problem re: too many soft players. He's what you want more of, not less. Extremely effective offensively and willing to get involved in every scrum. He loses every fight, but his will is evident every game. It's the Zibanejad's and Chytil's of the world you have to worry about more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buch isn't a problem re: too many soft players. He's what you want more of, not less. Extremely effective offensively and willing to get involved in every scrum. He loses every fight, but his will is evident every game. It's the Zibanejad's and Chytil's of the world you have to worry about more.

 

and Strome-who will disappear once "the tough gets going".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. I have made it clear that I believe the Rangers need to do far more than improve on the margins. I believe they need to hunt for big game to change the dynamic of their top six, and yes, of course if there is any way to pry Matthew Tkachuk out of Calgary that should become Drury’s singular obsession. There is nobody, but nobody, who would be a better fit.

 

Of course the bounty sent the other way would be massive. The Rangers have four players with no-move clauses in Artemi Panarin, Mika Zibanejad, Chris Kreider and Jacob Trouba, none of whom would suit the Flames, anyway.

 

I’d wall off Igor Shesterkin, Adam Fox and Alexis Lafreniere as untouchable, I’d designate Ryan Lindgren nearly untouchable and go from there.

 

Does that mean I’m in a hurry to move Kaapo Kakko? No. Or K’Andre Miller? Certainly not. But as I have said before, the Rangers are going to have to trade someone they don’t want to sacrifice in order to get a transformational top-six player.

 

Maybe I am wrong, but I don’t envision a package consisting of a permutation of Filip Chytil, Pavel Buchnevich, Vitali Kravtsov, Zac Jones, Nils Lundkvist and future first-rounders getting it done.

 

Do you think Neil Smith wanted to trade Tony Amonte?

 

https://nypost.com/2021/05/11/rangers-chris-drury-has-to-go-all-in-on-his-david-quinn-call/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Lol Larry obviously read this thread and my post last night in the offseason thread:

 

Matthew Tkachuk. He's literally the perfect player for this team, but I'm not sure we have the right player that would entice the Flames.

 

Cite your work LB! Just surprised you didn't also mention the three way trade scenario to get the Flames the right player in exchange.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buch isn't a problem re: too many soft players. He's what you want more of, not less. Extremely effective offensively and willing to get involved in every scrum. He loses every fight, but his will is evident every game. It's the Zibanejad's and Chytil's of the world you have to worry about more.

 

It’s not how many you win. It’s how many you show up for

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He's untouchable in the sense that the roster is so devoid of character, leadership, and toughness, that Ryan Lindgren is hilariously necessary.
Or maybe... he's untouchable because the roster is so devoid of character, leadership, and toughness, that he's locked in for 3 years at a fair deal and provides all of that, so it's not hilarious at all?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If not for the existence of 'celly,' the word I'd just love to nuke from hockey's lexicon is 'untouchable.'

 

The concept shouldn't exist. There is literally no one who is untouchable. There are guys who can be had easily and guys who can be had much more difficultly. No one is beyond reproach.

 

Lindgren isn't untouchable. He's just part of what's working well, so it's illogical to trade him away in a deal that robs from column A to fill column B. Deal from your depth/strength.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If not for the existence of 'celly,' the word I'd just love to nuke from hockey's lexicon is 'untouchable.'

 

The concept shouldn't exist. There is literally no one who is untouchable. There are guys who can be had easily and guys who can be had much more difficultly. No one is beyond reproach.

 

Lindgren isn't untouchable. He's just part of what's working well, so it's illogical to trade him away in a deal that robs from column A to fill column B. Deal from your depth/strength.

 

didn't you say the same thing about Buchnevich earlier?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or maybe... he's untouchable because the roster is so devoid of character, leadership, and toughness, that he's locked in for 3 years at a fair deal and provides all of that, so it's not hilarious at all?

 

so, you're agreeing that he's untouchable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do people keep bringing up Kreider as possible trade bait? He has a NMC, does he not? People don't sign those things then just waive them a year into a contract. It maybe nice to dream that you can trade him but he has no reason to grant that request.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so, you're agreeing that he's untouchable?
No one is untouchable. If the Oilers offer McDavid for Shesterkin are we saying no?

 

It would take a lot for me to trade Lindgren due to age, contract, partnership with Fox, intangibles and playing style that guys like Miller, Jones and Reunnanen don't bring.

 

Like it would need to be a clear, on paper raping of the other team...like Matthew Tkachuk, not Brady.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...